Liberal hypocrisy; Studds vs. Foley - Page 2

Thorgrim · 10-16-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why are only Christians held to moral standards? I would hate to think that morals belong solely to Christians.

i said "high christian morality" not "high morality aka christian morality"

There are dozens of different types of morality which conflict in religion and philosophy

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

i said "high christian morality" not "high morality aka christian morality"

There are dozens of different types of morality which conflict in religion and philosophy

We're talking about sex with minors vs. sexual flirting with minors. Are you suggesting that sex with a minor is based only on 'high morality'?

7960 · 10-16-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We're talking about sex with minors vs. sexual flirting with minors. Are you suggesting that sex with a minor is based only on 'high morality'?

he's trying to avoid the real issue and it looks like he got you sidetracked....... so the real issue is

SHOULD WE EXPECT THE SAME FROM BOTH (D) AND (R)?

Of course the answer is yes, and of course that's not what's happening. He got you on some side topic about morality v christian morality or some shit.....basically he's got a king and a pawn and is moving them back and forth until you get your queen and bishops in place.

Fuck him...put him in his place. The Democrats should be held to the same standard, WHATEVER THAT STANDARD IS, as the republicans. They have not been and are not being held to that standard and it's bullshit. Foley deserves punishment for soliciting a minor and I hope he gets it. Studds deserved punishment and never understood why he didn't really get anything. Mel Reynolds.............

I didn't even know about him. Wanna know why? Because nobody wanted to screw over Reynolds/Democrats like they want to screw over Foley/Republicans today.

Throgrim, all this banter back and forth doesn't change the fact that some democrats were let go for doing the same or worse as Foley. It's a bullshit argument that "they don't portray themselves as high and mighty" blah blah blah. Are you saying the democrats can solicit and have sex with 16 year olds because "well, everyone expects us to so we guess it's ok"? Come on.....

WickedLou9 · 10-16-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

he's trying to avoid the real issue and it looks like he got you sidetracked....... so the real issue is

SHOULD WE EXPECT THE SAME FROM BOTH (D) AND (R)?

Of course the answer is yes, and of course that's not what's happening. He got you on some side topic about morality v christian morality or some shit.....basically he's got a king and a pawn and is moving them back and forth until you get your queen and bishops in place.

Fuck him...put him in his place. The Democrats should be held to the same standard, WHATEVER THAT STANDARD IS, as the republicans. They have not been and are not being held to that standard and it's bullshit. Foley deserves punishment for soliciting a minor and I hope he gets it. Studds deserved punishment and never understood why he didn't really get anything. Mel Reynolds............. I didn't even know about him. Wanna know why? Because nobody wanted to screw over Reynolds/Democrats like they want to screw over Foley/Republicans today.

Throgrim, all this banter back and forth doesn't change the fact that some democrats were let go for doing the same or worse as Foley. It's a bullshit argument that "they don't portray themselves as high and mighty" blah blah blah. Are you saying the democrats can solicit and have sex with 16 year olds because "well, everyone expects us to so we guess it's ok"? Come on.....

I don't agree with Thorgrim's arguement either, but I do see a distinction between the two acts.

Foley was making unwanted sexual advances towards many different individuals in a serial manner. That's sexual harrasment, it was repeated and ongoing. We can even forget about the fact that these were 17 year old males. Most companies would fire a person for acting like that.

Studds was in a consentual relationship with another male old enough to know what he was doing. To me that's not the same. Was it immoral? I guess. Not because he was a homosexual but because he was in a position of power and the page may have been influenced in some way by that. Reguardless , it has the image of impropriety and we generally frown upon a superior carrying on a sexual relationship with an inferior. IE a manager with someone that works for them.

Both acts were immoral but Foley's was worse.

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Both acts were immoral but Foley's was worse.

I still don't see how flirtatious emails/IMs were worse than the actual act itself. Don't forget, if you read the emails and IMs, the pages were just as willing to partake in the conversations themselves. If they didn't want to respond, they didn't have to. Nobody forced them to respond to Foley's advancements.

Donkey® · 10-16-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I still don't see how flirtatious emails/IMs were worse than the actual act itself. Don't forget, if you read the emails and IMs, the pages were just as willing to partake in the conversations themselves. If they didn't want to respond, they didn't have to. Nobody forced them to respond to Foley's advancements.

If Foley had found a willing partner would he have fucked the boys? Going to try and fool yourself into saying "no, never!" ?

WickedLou9 · 10-16-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I still don't see how flirtatious emails/IMs were worse than the actual act itself. Don't forget, if you read the emails and IMs, the pages were just as willing to partake in the conversations themselves. If they didn't want to respond, they didn't have to. Nobody forced them to respond to Foley's advancements.

There were plenty of them who Foley had contacted who simply cut off communiction when Foley began to talk to them about sexual things.

garbagemanlb · 10-16-2006, 06:48 PM

Was there a scandal about Democratic leaders trying to cover up his actions?

WickedLou9 · 10-16-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Was there a scandal about Democratic leaders trying to cover up his actions?

good point. Alot of the Foley scandal revolved around who knew what and when. As it appears now, there were one or more GOP lawmakers who knew as much as several years ago and did not act on it.

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There were plenty of them who Foley had contacted who simply cut off communiction when Foley began to talk to them about sexual things.

Yes, which means he didn't quite pursue them, did he?

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

good point. Alot of the Foley scandal revolved around who knew what and when. As it appears now, there were one or more GOP lawmakers who knew as much as several years ago and did not act on it.

A lot of the Foley scandal is about what seems to be covered up, not what is actually covered up. We know nothing at this point.

WickedLou9 · 10-16-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, which means he didn't quite pursue them, did he?

Um.. yes?

RMNIXON · 10-16-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, which means he didn't quite pursue them, did he?

And if he ever did and they responded positively now it is harmless consentual sex instead of a sick perversion!

Oh he would have to be a DEMOCRAT!

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Um.. yes?

No, a one time attempt is not a pursuit.

pur‧sue /pərˈsu/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[per-soo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -sued, -su‧ing.

–verb (used with object) 1. to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
2. to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
3. to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object, purpose, etc.).
4. to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
5. to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an inquiry, studies, etc.).
6. to continue to annoy, afflict, or trouble.
7. to practice (an occupation, pastime, etc.).
8. to continue to discuss (a subject, topic, etc.).
9. to follow: They pursued the river to its source. I felt their eyes pursuing me.
10. to continue; go on with (one's course, a journey, etc.).
–verb (used without object) 11. to follow in pursuit.
12. to continue.